Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-12
review-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-12-genart-lc-romascanu-2022-05-06-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2022-05-11 | |
Requested | 2022-04-27 | |
Authors | Hendrik Brockhaus , Hans Aschauer , Mike Ounsworth , John Gray | |
I-D last updated | 2022-05-06 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -12
by Dan Romascanu
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Qin Wu (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Dan Romascanu |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/v27X7uDX89t_1_CtUsEdOpxjJcY | |
Reviewed revision | 12 (document currently at 15) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2022-05-06 |
review-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-12-genart-lc-romascanu-2022-05-06-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-12 Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 2022-05-06 IETF LC End Date: 2022-05-11 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready with nits. This document updates RFC 4210 describing the conventions for using concrete cryptographic algorithms with the Certificate Management Protocol (CMP), which is used to enroll and further manage the lifecycle of X.509 certificates. Its reading requires expertise and familiarity with previously published documents. The document is ready. I pointed to a few nits, most of them improvements on readability and orientation. Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: 1. It would be useful to provide references for terms at first occurrence. For example Section 2 directly mentions OOBCertHash, CertStatus, Challenge, PBMParameter, DHBMParameter, etc. without providing a reference. 2. Section 2.2 - provide reference for X.509 at first occurrence (probably [RFC4210]) 3. For clarity and in order to avoid confusions it would be useful to expand MAC 4. For clarity it would be useful to position Table 3 to start at top of the page to avoid split at printing